DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that its employees were not on the premises at the time that the plaintiff was injured ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence in admissible form to rebut this prima facie showing ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The plaintiff's contention that she needed to conduct further discovery was insufficient to defeat the defendant's motion. The plaintiff's mere expressions of hope that discovery would reveal something helpful to her case provided no basis for denying the defendant's motion ( see Berrios v. Kobal, 262 A.D.2d 514; Weeden v. First Natl. Bank of Long Is., 227 A.D.2d 398; Mazzaferro v. Barterama Corp., 218 A.D.2d 643; Bryan v. City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 448; see also Cruz v. Otis El. Co., 238 A.D.2d 540).
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.